Watching the health impacts of genetically modified foods discussed on national TV this week was a rare event. In fact, the Dr. Oz Show, which aired on Genetically Modified Foods December 7th 2010, marks the first time any major entertainment show has covered the health dangers of Genetically Modified Foods in the United States. Kudos to Dr. Oz and his producers for taking on this important subject. Let's hope it's the first of many network shows to also inform consumers about the dangers of GMOs and how to make healthier non-GMO choices.

We recorded the show at the Rockefeller Studio in New York two weeks earlier. Since the actual taping was about half an hour and the footage consumers would see needed to fit into 15 minutes, everything depended on the editing. When I watched our lead segment on Tuesday morning, I was pleased with the points that Michael Hansen of the Consumers Union and I were able to convey:

*The FDA doesn’t require any labeling or safety testing of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).*Animal feeding studies, however, show numerous problems that link GMOs to allergies, reproductive disorders, accelerated aging, etc.*GE salmon, for example, may trigger more allergies.*The biotech industry attacks scientists who make these discoveries, and tries to distort or deny their findings.*Medical groups are nonetheless asking all physicians to prescribe non-GMO diets to everyone.*Shoppers can look for the Non-GMO Project seal on packaging.*Or consumers can use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide to choose from thousands of healthier non-GMO brands, especially for children are most at risk to the dangers.

When I mentioned this last point, the audience erupted into spontaneous applause. After all, 80% of them polled in the pre-program survey said that they would avoid GMOs if given a choice””and IRT’s Guide gives them that choice.

Their applause also confirmed that they did not accept the statements from the pro-GM scientist, who tried her best to pretend that GMOs were entirely safe. And from what I have been hearing in numerous emails since the show aired””the TV audience came to the same conclusion.

One nutritionist, for example, told me, "Friends, family, and clients are calling me left and right, stating that now they're ready to believe what I’ve been telling them about GMOs! This is a huge step forward."

Of course the short interview didn't allow us to go into depth, and it would have been better for consumers to just have Michael and me on, so that we could go into greater detail about the issue. It was nevertheless a great victory in our mission to achieve the tipping point of consumer rejection””to drive GMOs out of the market. It was both a milestone and a stepping stone.

Feel free to suggest to other national talk shows that they too take this on. I'm game...

Ronald's response, published on her blog, doesn't stand up to analysis. http://scienceblogs.com/tomorrowstable/2010/12/dr_oz_prescribes_non-gmo_diets.php?utm_source=mostactive&utm_medium=linkThe Golden Rice she touts as a GM success is plagued by an absence of safety data and is clearly not the most practical solution to vitamin A deficiency. Her argument that Bt crops reduce chemical insecticide use ignores the fact that Bt crops are themselves a pesticide. Bt crops don't reduce pesticides but simply change the way in which they are used.

Our advice to Pam - it's not enough to claim authority based on your nominal status as a scientist, as you did on Dr Oz - you actually have to use scientific arguments. Like Smith and Hansen, in fact.